The Red-winged Starling is a large, black bird with striking reddish wing feathers. Males and females look similar but can be told apart: the male has an all-black head, whilst the female’s head is grey.
Red-winged Starling identification. Karis Daniel, Cape Town, Western Cape. 22 November 2020. BirdPix 179611
Both males and females have glossy blueish-black bodies and long tails. Their beaks, legs and feet are also black. When perched, a narrow strip of reddish-orange is just visible on the wing; however this patch of colour becomes much more obvious when the bird is in flight.
Neels Jackson, Glenmore, KwaZulu-Natal. 16 December 2020. BirdPix 152027
This colourful part of the wing contains the primary feathers; the long, strong outer feathers on a bird’s wing. Most species have 9 or 10 primaries. Primaries, together with secondaries, which are the rest of the long feathers between the primaries and the bird’s body, make up the flight feathers. This group of feathers plays an important role in supporting a bird in flight. Beyond keeping them in the air, the Red-winged Starling’s spectacular rust-coloured primaries are a distinctive characteristic, allowing for easy identification when seen swooping overhead.
Red-winged Starlings produce a sweet, clear two-note call and a highly variable whistled song. They also produce an alarmingly raspy scolding sound.
Birds in flight or foraging in a flock often communicate with shortened contact calls, which you can hear in the video below.
Habitat
Red-winged Starlings primarily feed on fruit, insects, arthropods, and nectar, often from aloes or proteas. It’s easy to tell when a starling has been feeding on nectar–its face usually ends up dusted with bright orange pollen (see lower right photo).
Clockwise from top L: Anthony Paton, Northcliff, Gauteng. 1 September 2018. BirdPix 148686; Marius Meiring, Plettenbergbai, Western Cape. 2 February 2021. BirdPix 190019; Zenobia van Dyk, Clanwilliam, Western Cape. 5 June 2020. BirdPix 114600; Dieter Oschadleus, Montagu, Western Cape. 21 October 2020. BirdPix 135428; Gregg & Desire Darling, Port Shepstone, KwaZulu-Natal. 28 June 2014. BirdPix 8800
Red-winged Starlings forage alone, in pairs, or in small groups, either on the ground or in trees. These birds are opportunists; they are excellent at surviving on whatever types of food are available as well as finding new sources of food. Red-winged Starlings typically prefer rocky, mountainous habitat, but their opportunistic tendencies allow them to easily adapt to life along coastlines and in urban environments.
Clockwise from top L: Zenobia van Dyk, Middelburg, Eastern Cape. 3 June 2018. BirdPix 54689; Itxaso Quintana, Cape Town, Western Cape.13 June 2020. BirdPix 115365; Dave Kennedy, Hout Bay, Western Cape. 15 October 2018. BirdPix 83017; Roodepoort, Gauteng. 15 March 2020. BirdPix 109240
Distribution
The Red-winged Starling is found across east Africa, all the way from Ethiopia down to South Africa. Within southern Africa, it is common in Zimbabwe and southeast Botswana, and all of eastern and southern South Africa except for the driest interior parts of the Northern Cape.
SABAP2 distribution map for Red-winged Starling, downloaded 18 November 2021. Details for map interpolation here.
Behaviour
Red-winged Starlings are gregarious and are usually either in pairs or large flocks. These birds are monogamous, meaning that the same male and female stay and breed together for many years. Though well-established pairs will often remain at their favourite nesting site all year, many Red-winged starlings join together in winter to form massive flocks, roosting together on rocky outcrops or in trees. Keep an eye out for these flocks in winter—hundreds of those distinct reddish wings beating at once make for a spectacular sight!
Andrew Keys, Hartebeespoort, North West. 8 May 2020. BirdPix 112036
Much like with their diet, Red-winged Starlings are also opportunists when it comes to nesting. Pairs of Red-winged Starlings roosting as part of a flock may also nest close together; however, some pairs take up residency in a particular spot and nest alone each year.
L: Joan Young, Rustenburg, North West. 2 April 2014. BirdPix 9239; R: Neels Putter, Cathedral Peak, KwaZulu-Natal. 11 November 2020. BirdPix 140314
Both males and females work together to build a large, cup-shaped nest from sticks, grasses, and mud. The nest is often lined with soft grass and animal hairs. The same nest is often reused for many years, and not always by the same pair of birds! Males and females will carefully refurbish and maintain an “old” nest before using it in the breeding season. Nests may be built in a variety of locations, but are most common on rocky ledges or ledges of buildings.
Virtual Museum (BirdPix > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Rooivlerkspreeu (Afrikaans); Rufipenne morio(French); Rotschwingenstar(German); Storno alirosse (Italian) Estornino alirrojo (Spanish)
A list of bird species in this format is available here.
Recommended citation format: Daniel KA 2021. Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio. Biodiversity and Development Institute. Available online at https://thebdi.org/2021/18/11/red-winged-starling-onychognathus-morio/
Roads are the most widespread form of ecological health and integrity loss. Currently, roads are causing severe conservation threats to apex predators globally, and those impacts are expected to increase in the near future if development is not planned properly.
Itxaso Quintana, a Research Associate of the BDI, is one of the lead authors of a newly-published research paper which examined how the network of both current and future planned roads will impact 36 apex predator species across the globe. The paper is published in Scientific Reports, one of the journals in the prestigious stable of journals belonging to Nature.
Bat-eared Fox Otocyon megalotis found dead on the on R44 road between Porterville and Piketberg, Western Cape, South Africa – MammalMAP record by A.G. Kilpin
One of the most interesting things about the research is that it was done by a group of just-graduated MSc students from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters – International Master’s in Applied Ecology (IMAE). The “joint masters” was funded by the European Commission, and the students moved between the participating universities, in Europe and South America. Almost every member of the class of 25 students represented a different country, with at least one student from every continent! Co-authors of this paper represented South Africa, Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Nepal, Spain and France, which gives the paper an international perspective. One of the academics who coordinated this master’s programme, Professor Freddie-Jeanne Richard (Département de Biologie des Organismes et des Populations, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France) gave the students the opportunity to form groups to work on reviews of particular topics, and reserved budget so that the publication costs were covered. This is a clever strategy, because it encouraged the group of students, early career scientists, to develop collaborative research skills, and enabled them to publish a substantive paper in a high-ranking journal.
In this paper, the authors assess the impact of existing roads and highlight that currently all 36 apex predator species are exposed to the current road network, suffering from road kills, to increase of poaching and habitat loss due to the increase of accessibility to otherwise remote areas. Asia is a hotspot of high-risk apex predators, hosting 8 of the 10 species most at risk from roads, and with the Sloth Bear, Tiger and Dhole as the most affected.
In Africa, the Brown Hyena, a predator endemic to Southern Africa, is the most exposed to roads making it at high risk from roads. Additionally, the authors show that in South Africa, 20 Brown Hyenas have been killed by collision since 2011, and in total, more than 400 apex predators have been killed on the roads in the last two decades.
This photo was taken by Yennifer Hernández, from Uruguay. Yennifer helped with the research of the Brown Hyena Research Project in the Namib Desert north and south of Luderitz, Namibia. This “Be careful of Brown Hyenas” sign is on the road from Luderitz towards Keetmanshoop.
The authors also propose a widely applicable method to assess the potential impact of future planned development and applied it in three areas that hold critical ecosystems from apex predators: the Brazilian Amazon, Africa and Nepal. They found that roughly 500 protected areas will be intersected by roads, threatening apex predators’ habitats and ultimately ecosystem functioning.
If not planned properly, Scientists warn that roads crossing Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park, in particular, are expected to devastate one of the world’s greatest animal migrations, causing a domino effect on healthy apex predator populations. Finally, the authors emphasize that even if roads can lead to positive social and economic outcomes, this must be strategically planned so that they avoid wilderness and important conservation areas. Future roads should simultaneously adopt mitigation measures such as wildlife crossing areas.
This study started because all authors were aware of conservation issues and realized that roads have already impacted most of the earth’s ecosystems. Apex predators, in particular, are acutely threatened by roads, due to their large spatial ranges, low population densities and reproduction rates. They are at the same time charismatic species and vital to the structure and functioning of ecosystems.
Apex predators risk to roads calculated as the product of exposure to roads (road density within the species range) and vulnerability of species. Gauges indicate the risk value of each species. Bars indicate the standardized road density, the proportion of species distribution area unprotected, standardized number of IUCN listed threats, and standardized value of the categorized average body mass (i.e., very large (> 100 kg), large (25–100 kg), medium (15–25 kg), small (8–15 kg)). The IUCN conservation of each species18 is shown. P. uncia, L. pictus and L. canadensis silhouettes were drawn by Gabriela Palomo-Muñoz, all predator silhouettes were acquired from PhyloPic (http://phylopic.org/).
This blog is illustrated by photos from the MammalMAP section of the Virtual Museum. Records of road kills, regardless of species (and regardless of whether it is a mammal, a reptile, or bird), are really valuable, because they help us understand which species are impacted and where. So if you see a road kill while you are driving, do consider throwing a U-ie, going back and taking a photograph and uploading it to the Virtual Museum. Within the Virtual Museum upload system, there is a box which can be ticked to indicate that the record is a road kill.
The paper is Open Access at this link:
Quintana I, Cifuentes EF, Dunnink JA, Ariza M, Martínez‑Medina D, Fantacini FM, Shrestha BR, Richard F-J. 2002. Severe conservation risks of roads on apex predators. Scientific Reports 12: 2902. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05294-9
We have lots of exciting news to share with you this month, from the plains of the Karoo to the savannas and woodlands of Limpopo Province. And, we have some great news about the online citizen science journal Biodiversity Observations and the biomemory which is the Virtual Museum.
Karoo Research Centre
We launched the Karoo Research Centre at the beginning of February 2022 and are currently developing the fieldwork protocols that will serve as the basis of our research. We aim to create protocols with enough structure to deliver critical insights into changes in Karoo biodiversity, but which also remain straightforward and accessible for implementation by citizen scientists throughout the Karoo.
The Karoo Research Centre is a collaboration between the Khoisan Karoo Conservancy and the Biodiversity and Development Institute (BDI). The Karoo Research Centre is based at New Holme, the main accommodation lodge in the conservancy, located in the Northern Cape Province between Hanover and Colesberg and 8 km off the N1.
By good fortune, we are starting our monitoring at a peak in seasonal wetness in the Karoo. The Khoisan Karoo Conservancy has already received its normal average rainfall, the Seekoei River is flowing strongly, and the New Holme Dam has been overflowing for weeks; this region is enjoying more water than it has in decades.
Once we have obtained sufficient results to establish our credentials, the Karoo Research Centre will receive a formal launch. In the meantime, come and spend a night or two here, and experience the excitement of establishing a new initiative for yourself! We are almost exactly halfway between Gauteng and Cape Town.
One of the current projects at the Karoo Research Centre is a weekly survey of all the waterbirds on the New Holme Dam. Currently, the dam is completely full, and the perimeter is around 14 km in length. Basque interns Josu Melendez and Jon Blanco take a canoe each along the perimeter, keeping a good distance offshore so they don’t disturb the birds as they move along. It takes a bit over four hours to complete a survey.
There has been fantastic rainfall over the Karoo this summer. Our hypothesis is that the waterbirds are breeding on the myriad of ephemeral wetlands and that when these dry up the adults and their young will come to the New Holme Dam as a dry season refuge through the winter. The first survey produced a total of 479 waterbirds of 18 species, and was dominated by Egyptian Geese (216) and South African Shelduck (109). That is not a lot of birds for that huge area of dam!
To follow updates and news on the Karoo Research Centre, and all our other awesome projects, be sure to follow the BDI on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.
Daily Maverick journalist Angus Begg visited the Khoisan Karoo Conservancy a few weeks ago. Read about his experience here.
BDI Shy Five Tours
The BDI will be hosting Shy Five tours at Khoisan Karoo Conservancy near Hanover in the Northern Cape starting in March 2022. You don’t want to miss out on these awesome biodiversity tours! A great opportunity to meet the Karoo Shy Five: Aardwolf, Aardvark, Black-Footed Cat, Porcupine and Bat-eared Fox. The first tour dates coming up are 20 to 23 March and 8 to 11 April.
If you are interested please contact Megan Loftie-Eaton at megan@thebdi.org or meg.loftie.eaton@gmail.com
A rough itinerary of what you can expect:
Day 1: • During the afternoon: Arrive at New Holme • This is home for the next three nights • Welcome and settle in rooms • 17h00. Sunset game drive to see hippos and buffalo • 19h30. Dinner at New Holme lodge • 20h30. Shy Five night drive in game vehicle, covering about 20 km, and meeting some or all of the Shy Five night mammal species – Aardwolf, Aardvark, Black Footed Cat, Porcupine and Bat-eared Fox.
Day 2: • 06h00. Coffee and rusks. Bird ringing at the lodge; morning birding drive • 10h00. Brunch at the lodge • 11h30. Meet the BDI research team and get to understand the monitoring projects on the go • 16h30. A game and birding drive, followed by sundowners and the veld braai on a hilltop • 20h00. Karoo farm pudding at the lodge
Day 3: • 06h00. Coffee and rusks. Bird ringing at the lodge; morning birding drive • 10h00. Brunch at the lodge • 11h30. Option of doing fieldwork for the monitoring projects • 16h30. Khoi etching trip [10 km drive and a 1 km walk] with snacks • 19h30. Dinner at the lodge • 20h30. Shy Five night drive.
Day 4: • 07h30. Breakfast at the lodge and departure
Virtual Museum
OdonataMAP
Andries de Vries photographed a very special dragonfly in an area where it has not been recorded before! He OdonataMAPped a Crenigomphus hartmanni Clubbed Talontail (Afr: Knoppiekloustert) near Groblersdal. Groblersdal is a farming town situated 32 km north of the Loskop Dam in the Sekhukhune District of Limpopo Province.
Crenigomphus hartmanni – Clubbed Talontail
Andries says: “The first specimen was a welcome surprise; but after preparing myself a bit better for the long grass around the dam, I returned and photographed another 5 individuals. In total 4 males and 2 females were seen within 200 meters! These will be the first photographic records to be submitted to the Virtual Museum for this Quarter Degree Sector. Another special observation was a connected pair of Mesocnemis singularis – Savanna Riverjack, another first for this locality”
Well done Andries! Thank you for your awesome support and inputs!
Quick uploads for the Virtual Museum
Need a quick way to upload records to the Virtual Museum from your cellphone? We have the solution! Take a look at: https://quickvm.co.za — a mobile friendly version to get your biodiversity records into the VM.
Total number of records submitted to the Virtual Museum per month per year.
For February 2022, the VM received 10,025 records! Thank you BioMAPpers!
Biodiversity Observations
During 2021 the Biodiversity Observations journal went into a little hibernation, some people might even have thought that the journal had closed. But have no fear! The journal is still here! In fact, the first new paper for 2022 has been published, titled: “First nesting records for Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus in the Northern Cape, South Africa” You can access the full paper here.
Biodiversity Observations is the continuation of Ornithological Observations (volumes 1 to 6), it is an e-journal published by the Biodiversity and Development Institute and hosted by the University of Cape Town Libraries.
Biodiversity Observations accepts papers containing information about biodiversity in general. This includes descriptions of distribution, behaviour, breeding, foraging, food, movement, measurements, habitat and colouration/plumage. It will also consider for publication a variety of other interesting or relevant biodiversity material: reports of projects and conferences, annotated checklists for a site or region, specialist bibliographies, book reviews and any other interesting or relevant material. Further details and guidelines to authors are on this website.
Biodiversity Observations aims to create a platform for scientists and citizen scientists to publish a variety of biodiversity related contributions as quickly as possible. The papers will not be peer-reviewed or refereed, but the Editorial Committee will ensure a high standard is maintained. We encourage dialogue and discussion, so papers reflecting on topics already published will be considered. We invite interested parties from all walks of life to submit contributions to be considered for publication. Biodiversity Observations accepts submissions from anywhere in the world.
View the above photo record (by Zenobia van Dyk) in FrogMAPhere.
Find the Tandy’s Sand Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
TANDY’S SAND FROG – Tomopterna tandyi
Channing and Bogart, 1996
Habitat
T. tandyi inhabits loose, sandy soils. It occurs along small streams, pans and temporary rain pools, and is commonly associated with farm dams. It thrives in both arid and more mesic areas where annual rainfall is 50–>750 mm. Records are known from the Nama Karoo, Grassland and Savanna biomes.
Breeding habitat – Near Carnarvon, Northern Cape Photo by Ryan Tippett
Behaviour
Little is known of the reproductive biology of this species. Males call from exposed positions at the edge of newly formed pools, but also from beneath vegetation in flooded areas. Tadpoles vary in colour according to the turbidity of the water in which they are found.
T. tandyi appears to be a widespread and common species that does not require conservation action. However, additional distribution data based on reliable diagnostic characters, such as advertisement calls, are needed to produce an accurate distribution map for this species.
Distribution
This cryptic, tetraploid species is difficult to distinguish from T. cryptotis (see discussion in T. cryptotis species account). T. tandyi occurs in sympatry with T. delalandii at many localities, for example, Port Alfred (3326DB), and with T. cryptotis at, for example, Colesberg (3025CA).
On the basis of the few existing confirmed records (unpubl. data), T. tandyi appears to be distributed from the semi-arid Karoo region of South Africa northward into East Africa. It has been found from sea level to the inland plateau at >1800 m.
Distribution records, based on advertisement calls, were collected mainly in the southern parts of the atlas region by M. Burger and H.H. Braack. The distribution of this species in the northern and eastern parts of the atlas region is not well known as few verifiable records were collected by observers working in these areas. The distribution data shown on the map are therefore accurate, but incomplete.
Distribution of Tomopterna tandyi. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
Virtual Museum (FrogMAP > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Tandy se Sandpadda (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format for this species text:
Channing A, Tippett RM. Tandy’s Sand Frog Tomopterna tandyi. BDI, Cape Town. Available online at http://thebdi.org/2022/02/23/tandys-sand-frog-tomopterna-tandyi/
Recommended citation format:
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas. The reference to the text and the book are as follows:
Channing A 2004 Tomopterna tandyi Tandy’s Sand Frog. In Minter LR et al 2004.
Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
View the above photo record (by Alicia Culverwell) in FrogMAPhere.
Find the Natal Sand Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
NATAL SAND FROG – Tomopterna natalensis
(Smith, 1849)
Habitat
T. natalensis is found in a variety of vegetation types in the Grassland and Savanna biomes. These areas receive annual rainfall of 300–>1000 mm. Breeding takes place in streams, rivers or other places where water flows slowly, but also in standing water.
Behaviour
Breeding begins after the first rains, continuing into midsummer. Males call from exposed positions near the water’s edge, on bare sand, mud or rock. The eggs are usually laid singly or in small groups, in running water. Development is rapid and is completed within 2–3 weeks.
The only recorded predator is the Brown House Snake Lamprophis fuliginosus.
Pending the results of future distribution surveys (see remarks under Distribution), this widespread species does not appear to require conservation action.
Distribution
T. natalensis is recorded from Botswana, Zimbabwe and southern Mozambique and its distribution extends into the eastern part of the atlas region, where it occurs from sea level to the high inland plateau at 2000 m. It is largely absent from the upper slopes of the Drakensberg. It is a common species in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, as well as in the eastern parts of North West and Eastern Cape provinces and throughout Swaziland. The species is uncommon in the Free State and Lesotho.
The distribution map is reasonably complete and accurate in relation to the present taxonomic status and diagnosis of this species. However, the description of additional cryptic species (unpubl. data) may necessitate a re-examination of the distribution of this species. Distribution records should in future be accompanied by recordings of the advertisement calls.
Distribution of Tomopterna natalensis. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
Virtual Museum (FrogMAP > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Natal Pyxie (Alternative English Names); Natalse Sandpadda (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format for this species text:
Channing A, Tippett RM. Natal Sand Frog Tomopterna natalensis. BDI, Cape Town. Available online at http://thebdi.org/2022/02/23/natal-sand-frog-tomopterna-natalensis/
Recommended citation format:
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas. The reference to the text and the book are as follows:
Channing A 2004 Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog. In Minter LR et al 2004.
Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
View the above photo record (by Vaughan Jessnitz) in FrogMAPhere.
Find the Russet-backed Sand Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
RUSSET-BACKED SAND FROG – Tomopterna marmorata
(Peters, 1854)
Habitat
In the atlas region, T. marmorata inhabits a range of bushveld vegetation types in the Savanna Biome. It seems to prefer sandy soil and occurs in areas where annual rainfall is 500–1000 mm. It breeds in slow-flowing rivers and streams as well as isolated pools, pans or dams with sandy substrates.
Behaviour
T. marmorata adults have been found buried in sandbanks during the dry season. They emerge after the first rains and begin breeding as soon as bodies of standing or running water have formed. Males call from open areas on sandbanks, near the edge of the water. Amplexus is axillary, and the eggs are laid in shallow water (L.R. Minter pers. comm.). The eggs are laid singly, and a clutch size of 150 eggs has been recorded (Channing 2001). No further life history details are known.
This is a widespread and common species, but see remarks under Distribution. No conservation action appears to be necessary.
Distribution
North of the atlas region, T. marmorata ranges from Botswana eastward through Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe to southern Mozambique. Within the atlas region, the species is fairly widespread in Limpopo Province and eastern Mpumalanga at altitudes <1000 m. An historical record from Ndumo Game Reserve in northern KwaZulu-Natal (Poynton 1964) requires confirmation, as the original specimens have been lost (Lambiris 1989a).
The distribution map is incomplete and the distribution data presented here should be viewed with circumspection. The description of additional cryptic species (unpubl. data) will necessitate a re-examination of the distribution of T. marmorata, using distribution records based on calls.
Distribution of Tomopterna marmorata. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
Virtual Museum (FrogMAP > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Marbled Sand Frog, Marmorate Pyxie, Mozambique Dwarf Bullfrog (Alternative English Names); Rooirug-sandpadda (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format for this species text:
Channing A, Tippett RM. Russet-backed Sand Frog Tomopterna marmorata. BDI, Cape Town. Available online at http://thebdi.org/2022/02/23/russet-backed-sand-frog-tomopterna-marmorata/
Recommended citation format:
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas. The reference to the text and the book are as follows:
Channing A 2004 Tomopterna marmorata Russet-backed Sand Frog. In Minter LR et al 2004.
Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
View the above photo record (by Alison Sharp) in FrogMAPhere.
Find the Cape Sand Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
CAPE SAND FROG – Tomopterna delalandii
(Tschudi, 1838)
Habitat
T. delalandii inhabits lowlands and valleys throughout the Fynbos and Succulent Karoo biomes. Annual rainfall in these areas is 60–750 mm. It breeds in pans, vleis and dams, as well as small watercourses in flat, sandy areas.
Behaviour
Males call from exposed positions, often in shallow water. This species breeds in winter in the winter-rainfall region, and in summer throughout the rest of its range (Channing 1988). About 2500 eggs are laid singly or in small masses and have an unpleasant odour. The tadpoles are benthic and reach 44 mm in length. Metamorphosis takes place within 25–35 days.
This widespread species is abundant and not in need of conservation action.
Distribution
This South African endemic species is distributed from Steinkopf (2917BC) in Northern Cape Province, southward through Namaqualand and eastward across most of Western Cape Province to the low-lying areas of Eastern Cape Province. It is recorded as far east as Port Alfred (3326DB). Some records from the Karoo and interior may be confused with T. tandyi (see the comments under T. cryptotis).
Distribution of Tomopterna delalandii. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
Virtual Museum (FrogMAP > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Delalande’s Sand Frog, Striped Pyxie (Alternative English Names); Gestreepte Sandpadda (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format for this species text:
Channing A, Tippett RM. Cape Sand Frog Tomopterna delalandii. BDI, Cape Town. Available online at http://thebdi.org/2022/02/21/cape-sand-frog-tomopterna-delalandii/
Recommended citation format:
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas. The reference to the text and the book are as follows:
Channing A 2004 Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog. In Minter LR et al 2004.
Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
View the above photo record (by Christopher Whitehouse) in FrogMAPhere.
Find the Marsh Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
MARSH FROG – Poyntonia paludicola
Channing and Boycott, 1989
Identification
This species may be confused with the moss frogs, Arthroleptella, that are found in the same habitat. However, P. paludicola is larger, females reaching 30 mm in body length, and has a very granular skin. Behind the eye there is a raised glandular area that resembles the parotoid gland in toads, and a glandular ridge runs from the top of the head to the angle of the jaw. The dorsum is grey-brown, often with a pale vertebral stripe. One to three pale stripes run from the lower margin of the eye to the upper lip. The advertisement call is a harsh chirp, unlike the high-pitched calls of Arthroleptella.
Poyntonia paludicola – Kogelberg Nature Reserve, Western Cape Photo by Felicity Grundlingh
Habitat
This species inhabits marshy areas, shallow seepage zones and shallow streams along rock outcrops in Mountain Fynbos. The rainfall in these areas exceeds 2000 mm p.a., and falls mainly in winter.
Behaviour
Once sufficient rain has fallen to produce shallow flooded areas, the males start to call. Calling may occur at any time of year in suitable weather conditions, but usually takes place from late summer to late winter. Males call from the edge of shallow water and from beneath vegetation in seepage areas (Channing and Boycott 1989). These frogs are beautifully camouflaged when among the mosses that are typical of their habitat.
The tadpoles have long tails and may grow to 32 mm in length. They hide in soft mud.
No records of predators or prey are available.
Poyntonia paludicola – Kogelberg Nature Reserve, Western Cape Photo by Megan Loftie-Eaton
Status and Conservation
Status
P. paludicola is assigned to the category Near Threatened (Harrison et al. 2001; this publication). The species has a restricted extent of occurrence (<5000 km2) and area of occupancy (<500 km2). It is estimated that its habitat had decreased in area by <20% over the last 60 years, and that the population size had declined by <20% over the same period (Harrison et al. 2001). These relatively minor changes may be explained by the species’ occurrence in generally rugged and inaccessible mountainous terrain. The conservation status of this species should be revised once more distribution data and information on habitat preferences and life history are available.
All known populations are located within protected areas, including Hottentots Holland, Maanschynkop, Vogelgat, Jonkershoek and Kogelberg nature reserves and the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve.
Threats
Present and potential threats include habitat modification by too frequent fires, altered drainage, damming, and the loss of fynbos to agriculture, particularly tree plantations. Habitat fragmentation also poses a significant threat.
Recommended conservation actions
Distribution surveys and population and life-history research are needed for this species. Other recommended measures include habitat management, limiting factor management, and monitoring (Harrison et al. 2001).
Distribution
P. paludicola is endemic to the Cape fold mountains of the southwestern Western Cape Province, where it occurs in two subpopulations (sensu the IUCN definition) in the Hottentots Holland/Kogelberg mountain complex and the Klein River Mountains (Channing and Boycott 1989). It is known from all altitudes between 200 and 1800 m wherever suitable habitat is present. Further fieldwork is expected to extend the known range. The atlas data are accurate but incomplete.
Distribution of Poyntonia paludicola. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
Virtual Museum (FrogMAP > Search VM > By Scientific or Common Name)
More common names: Montane Marsh Frog, Kogelberg Reserve Frog (Alternative English Names); Bergmoeraspadda (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format for this species text:
Channing A, Tippett RM. Marsh Frog Poyntonia paludicola. BDI, Cape Town. Available online at http://thebdi.org/2022/02/20/marsh-frog-poyntonia-paludicola/
Recommended citation format:
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas. The reference to the text and the book are as follows:
Channing A 2004 Poyntonia paludicola Marsh Frog. In Minter LR et al 2004.
Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
Find the Micro Frog in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
Identification
The Micro Frog is one of the smallest amphibians in southern Africa, attaining a length of only c.18 mm. The pupil is horizontally elliptical. The toes are partially webbed, with 2–3 phalanges of the longest toe free of webbing. The dorsum generally has a variable green, brown and/or grey colour, usually interspersed with darker shading and markings. A thin vertebral stripe is often present, sometimes flanked by broader lateral stripes. The ventrum is smooth and off-white or with variable black and white mottling. The throat area of males is plain brown without mottling. The length of the shank is less than half the body length. The call is a series of low-pitched scratches emitted at a rate of about one per second (Passmore and Carruthers 1995).
Although M. capensis belongs to a monotypic genus, it is of similar size and appearance to the sympatric species Cacosternum platys. C.platys can be distinguished from M. capensis by its somewhat flatter appearance (with limbs extended more laterally), a lack of webbing between the toes, a predominantly white underside with small, discrete dark spots, and its distinctly different call (Rose 1962; Channing 2001).
Habitat
The Micro Frog has specialised habitat requirements and is sensitive to urban and agricultural threats and invasive plants, and animals. The species is restricted to certain wetlands in low-lying coastal areas of the Fynbos Biome, where fynbos plant communities, typically dominated by restios and/or sedges, occur on neutral to acid sands. The relevant vegetation types are Mountain Fynbos, Sand Plain Fynbos, Mountain Fynbos mixed with Limestone Fynbos in the Gansbaai/Agulhas region, and Mountain Fynbos interspersed with elements of Dune Thicket in parts of the Kleinmond area.
The wetlands comprise ponds, pans, vleis and coastal lakelets filled with darkly stained, humic, generally acidic waters (pH 4.0–7.0). Most of these wetlands are seasonal, and by late summer most breeding sites are dry. Some of the larger wetlands (<25%) at times still retain some water by the end of the dry season, and a few never seem to dry up. The wetland substrates tend to contain a dark humic layer, and the sandy surroundings vary from white to grey to almost black, depending on the humic content.
Although the Micro Frog appears to be intolerant of habitat modification, a few of the breeding sites (c.15%) are situated in previously excavated areas where natural vegetation has recovered sufficiently and water quality meets the necessary requirements (pers. obs.).
Behaviour
The Micro Frog is a winter breeder and commences breeding once the rains have filled its seasonal wetland habitat. Breeding activity has been recorded as early as May (Visser 1979a) and as late as October (pers. obs.), but the prime breeding season is July–September. It is a relatively vocal species and is known to call in high densities. The calls can be heard both day and night, but calling activity is generally more intense at night. At prime breeding sites under ideal conditions, choruses of hundreds of individuals can be heard. Males call from emergent vegetation (e.g., restios) at water level, and from floating vegetation.
The eggs are attached to submerged vegetation in clusters of c.20. Each individual egg is enclosed in a jelly capsule. The tadpoles are benthic and relatively large. Larval development is fairly slow and its duration is believed to depend on factors such as tadpole population density, food and water availability, and temperature. Rose (1929) recorded the emergence of newly metamorphosed froglets in early December. These are only slightly smaller than the adults.
When their wetland habitat starts to dry up, these frogs bury themselves and aestivate through the dry season. Rose (1929) unearthed specimens on the site of a dry seasonal vlei, and about 20 were seen emerging from cracks in damp wetland substrate with the onset of early winter rains (pers. obs.).
Micro FrogMicrobatrachella capensis Near Cape Town, South Africa Photo by Pieter La Grange
Status and Conservation
Status
The Micro Frog is southern Africa’s most threatened lowland amphibian. More than 80% of its habitat has been lost. Previously listed as Rare (Mclachlan 1978) and Endangered (Branch 1988), the species is now classified as Critically Endangered (Harrison et al. 2001; this publication). The criteria are a severely fragmented area of occupancy <10 km2 (four subpopulations sensu IUCN Criteria), and a projected decline in the extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, quality of habitat, and number of locations, subpopulations and mature individuals. The species is legally protected by the Nature Conservation Ordinance 19 of 1974, but is not listed by CITES.
Despite its Critically Endangered status, the species occurs in relatively high population densities with an estimated 1000 adults occupying an area of 50 × 50 m of prime breeding habitat. At present, <25% of M.capensis breeding habitat is conserved in Kleinmond Coastal and Mountain Nature Reserve (local authority), Groot Hagelkraal Private Nature Reserve (between Gansbaai and Agulhas) and Greater Betty’s Bay Nature Reserve (local authority). Furthermore, the residential area of Betty’s Bay poses a threat to most of the remaining M.capensis habitat in Greater Betty’s Bay Nature Reserve.
Threats
All four subpopulations (sensu IUCN Criteria) and most breeding sites are threatened to a varying degree by human interference. In particular, urban and rural development (including agriculture and associated threats) have caused considerable habitat degradation and loss.
Specific threats include the filling in of habitat; alteration of the water table and drainage patterns that cause either drainage or possible flooding of breeding sites; establishment of sand mines that are a threat to populations in the Kleinmond area (De Villiers 1997b); siltation, pollution and eutrophication of wetland habitat; spread of invasive alien vegetation at a number of localities, especially in the form of Port Jackson Willow Acacia saligna stands; and, potentially, fynbos flower-farming activities.
Invasive alien vegetation not only eliminates fynbos vegetation and reduces the water resources of wetlands, but also results in deterioration in the quality of habitat through changes in water chemistry. Although fire plays an important role in fynbos ecosystems, an increase in the incidence of fire can have a detrimental effect on frog populations.
At some localities (e.g., the Groot Vleie at Betty’s Bay), Bulrushes Typha capensis and reeds Phragmitesaustralis have invaded M. capensis habitat. Reasons for this include eutrophication, the build up of sediment (e.g., through water being channelled into wetlands and the decomposition of excessive plant growth), and a constantly high water table.
Recommended conservation actions
The distribution and conservation status of M. capensis is monitored by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB; De Villiers 1997a) as part of a threatened species monitoring programme. Breeding sites are monitored annually. A research project is being undertaken to investigate the genetic relationships of the four subpopulations (sensu IUCN Criteria). This will help determine priorities with regard to the conservation and management of these subpopulations.
Management of the Micro Frog’s habitat is an important responsibility and needs to be improved at most breeding sites, especially those on unprotected, privately owned land. The main management activity involves the control of alien vegetation. Structures responsible for the management of populations are as follows: the Cape Flats subpopulation by WCNCB; Betty’s Bay subpopulation by Overstrand Municipality; Kleinmond Coastal and Mountain Nature Reserve by Overstrand Municipality; the remaining breeding sites of the Kleinmond subpopulation, all situated on unprotected private land, by WCNCB with regard to alien vegetation control; and Groot Hagelkraal Private Nature Reserve by Eskom. The remaining breeding sites of the Gansbaai to Agulhas subpopulation are all situated on unprotected private land where there is, as yet, no proper management programme.
At present, <25% of M. capensis habitat is conserved and additional nature reserves are urgently needed. Lack of funding is a major problem in this regard. In general, the Critically Endangered status of M. capensis needs to be publicized to attract public support for conservation of the species.
Sand-mining operations in the vicinity of M. capensis localities must be stopped and the affected habitat rehabilitated (De Villiers 1997b), but legal difficulties and a lack of funding have hampered progress in this regard.
As the distribution of the Micro Frog on the Cape Flats is restricted to <10 ha of wetland habitat on unprotected private property at Kenilworth Race Course, a translocation experiment was undertaken in September 1999. This involved the translocation of c.140 M. capensis tadpoles from the Kenilworth population to a protected blackwater wetland in Rondevlei Nature Reserve, 7 km away. The species has not previously been recorded from this nature reserve, but the nearest historical record, Princess Vlei, is 2 km away. At the time of writing, this experiment did not appear to have been successful but requires further investigation. A captive breeding programme for M. capensis is not recommended.
Finally, it is imperative that wetlands supporting populations of this species should not be stocked with predatory alien fish.
Distribution
The Micro Frog is endemic to the atlas region and is restricted to the winter-rainfall region of the Western Cape Province. Based on both previous and current records, this spans a distance of c.140 km from the Cape Flats southeastward to the Agulhas region. Distribution records are further limited to low-lying areas of 10–80 m a.s.l. within 10 km of the coast in areas with an annual rainfall of >500 mm.
M. capensis was first discovered on the Cape Flats. The species was described in 1910 and, for a period of 65 years thereafter, the Cape Flats was the species’ only known area of distribution (De Villiers 1988a). Although the discovery and description of the species was based on only one specimen (Boulenger 1910), the frog was later reported to have a wide distribution on the Cape Flats (Rose 1929). All recorded Cape Flats localities fall within an area of <100 km2 on the western half of the Cape Flats (3318CD, DC; 3418AB, BA). These include Crawford, Lansdowne, Kenilworth Race Course, Princess Vlei, Retreat, Ottery and Varkensvlei. No confirmed records were ever obtained from the Cape Peninsula (De Villiers 1988a).
Distribution of Microbatrachella capensis Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
The Micro Frog was first reported as being threatened by Rose (1962), who stated that the species had become “something of a rarity” on the Cape Flats as a result of “fencing, building, draining”, and “contaminating”. Following this, no further specimens were found for c.10 years from the mid-1960s on, and it was feared that the species was extinct.
In the period 1975–80, an amphibian survey by the then Cape Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation (carried out by J.C. Greig, R.C. Boycott, A.L. de Villiers) resulted in the discovery of three additional populations: along the coastal forelands to the southeast of the Cape Flats at Betty’s Bay (3418BD) in 1975, Kleinmond (3419AC) in 1976, and midway between Gansbaai and Agulhas (3419DA) in 1980.
During the period 1988–90, a survey was undertaken by the then Cape Chief Directorate Nature and Environmental Conservation (carried out by the author) to examine the distribution, habitat requirements and conservation status of M. capensis. Coincidentally, in August 1988, a botanical survey of the Cape Flats by C.R. McDowell led to the discovery of a healthy M.capensis population in undisturbed wetlands at Kenilworth Race Course (McDowell 1989). This was the first time the species had been seen on the Cape Flats in c.23 years. Furthermore, this appears to be the only remaining Cape Flats population. The frog survey confirmed the presence of this and the other three previously discovered populations to the east, but no additional populations were discovered. In total, 26 breeding sites were recorded, 14 of which were new localities. Since then, despite the destruction and degradation of habitat (e.g. De Villiers 1997b), there has been no significant change in the distribution of M. capensis. Breeding sites are monitored annually (De Villiers 1997a).
In summary, M. capensis has been recorded from a total of seven quarter-degree grid cells, in four subpopulations (sensu IUCN Criteria), namely the Cape Flats (four grid cells), Betty’s Bay, Kleinmond, and Gansbaai/Agulhas subpopulations. At present the species still occurs in four subpopulations, but its total area of occupancy is <10 km2 situated in four grid cells, that is, one grid cell for each subpopulation.
The atlas data are reliable and complete.
Addendum: 20 October 2025
A new subpopulation of Microbatrachella capensis was found in 2021 in the Nuwejaars Wetlands Special Management Area on the Agulhas Plain. This has become the 5th known subpopulation of Microbatrachella capensis and appears to constitute both the most inland and the most easterly known subpopulation. Due to the Nuwejaars Wetland’s size and protected status, this may prove to be a stronghold for this critically endangered frog species.
A link to the Nuwejaars Wetland website and corresponding Micro Frog article can be found here.
Further Resources
The use of photographs by Megan Loftie-Eaton and Pieter La Grange is acknowledged.
Recommended citation format: de Villiers, AL; Tippett, RM. (2025). Micro Frog Microbatrachella capensis. Biodiversity and Development Institute, Cape Town. Available online at https://thebdi.org/2022/02/20/micro-frog-microbatrachella-capensis/
This species text has been updated and expanded from the text in the 2004 frog atlas: de Villiers, AL. (2004). Micro Frog Microbatrachella capensis. In Minter LR et al 2004.
References:
Minter, LR; Burger, M; Harrison, JA; Braack, HH; Bishop, PJ; Kloepfer, D. (Editors). (2004). Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
Carruthers, V; du Preez, L. (2017). Frogs of southern Africa: A Complete Guide. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Channing, A. (2001) Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Protea Book House, Pretoria
Find the Rhythmic Caco in the FBIS database (Freshwater Biodiversity Information System) here.
Family Pyxicephalidae
Habitat
The Rhythmic Caco inhabits flooded grassy areas in mid- to high-altitude grassland areas.
Behaviour
The call is distinctive. It consists of a series of pulsed notes ending in a series of chirps. The call is rhythmical, hence the species name.
Rhythmic CacoCacosternum rhythmum Near Mooi River, KwaZulu-Natal Photo by Faansie Peacock
Status and Conservation
Very little is known about the Rhythmic Caco. The conservation status of C. rhythmum is considered Data Deficient.
Distribution
The Rythmic Caco is known only from a handful of locations in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands and from Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga. The species is endemic to South Africa.
Distribution of Cacosternum rhythmum. Taken from the FrogMAP database as at February 2022.
Further Resources
The use of photographs by Faansie Peacock and Nick Evans is acknowledged.
Rhythmic Caco Cacosternum rhythmum Channing et al., 2013
Other Common Names: Ritmiese Blikslanertjie (Afrikaans)
Recommended citation format: Tippett, RM. (2025). Rhythmic CacoCacosternum rhythmum. Biodiversity and Development Institute, Cape Town. Available online at https://thebdi.org/2022/02/20/rhythmic-caco-cacosternum-rhythmum/
References:
Minter, LR; Burger, M; Harrison, JA; Braack, HH; Bishop, PJ; Kloepfer, D. (Editors). (2004). Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
Carruthers, V; du Preez, L. (2017). Frogs of southern Africa: A Complete Guide. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Channing, A. (2001) Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Protea Book House, Pretoria
